Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: New Federal Fuel Economy Standard (SAFE)
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > New Federal Fuel Economy Standard (SAFE)

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 3  
Prev
ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 04/05/20 11:26am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Reisender wrote:

Agreed. But in many places it will be against the law to buy anything but an EV by 2040. The actual use of gas and diesel cars in service will continue for many years after for the reasons you described. It’ll happen faster in some places than others. In many places though it will just be to expensive (in comparison) to drive and maintain a gas or diesel powered vehicle. The average commuter needs about 6 to 8 kw of power for their daily needs. Manufacturers have made it clear they are not going to get that much more efficiency from an ICE. Unless the petroleum industry finds a way to bring down the cost of fuel production the industry is going to start to hurt as right now they loose money on every barrel of fuel. Although we would all like the price of fuel to stay low at some point they will have to return to profit. It’s an important industry as many products such as plastic, synthetics, lubricants, ashphalt etc all come from the petroleum industry. A balance needs to be found between the North American industry and opec.

Jmho.


I see a world where ICE and BEV can coexist. After all, we will need ICE vehicles on the roan to keep natural gas low and to pay for things like carbon from air fuel. One of the reasons why the cost of natural gas is so low is because it is a byproduct of oil fracking so there is way more supply then demand. If this oil fracking went away or was severely reduced, then the cost of natural gas goes up making the cost of energy to go up. This would be on top of the cost (paid for by the consumer) of upgrading all of the power lines to handle how much energy will be needed in a market with 50% or more BEV's.

You also have the factor of reducing CO2. BEV's only reduce the amount put in the air, not what is already in the air. We will need technologies such as pulling carbon from air to do it. This will need to be done on a massive scale and will cost a lot of money to do it. Since we are already able to convert this air carbon into carbon fuel, selling this fuel can fund these projects while also pulling more CO2 than what is put in the air buy burning fuel. If we went 100% or even 50% BEV's, then there would be no incentive for companies to do this.

I think many people miss the point on CO2 though. It is not bad to have CO2 in the air. After all the earth makes it on a massive scale all the time. What is bad is as overabundance of it, and if we can find a way were we can pull back the amount in the air to safe levels, then there is no reason why BEV and ICE could no coexist in applications where either is the best. For heavily populated areas, I see BEV's being ideal while ICE better for rural areas and equipment meant to tow /haul long distances or in remote areas. We can lower CO2 to natural levels with both being utilized for the applications they work best in while not going to extremes by cutting off sales of all ICE vehicles.

Reisender

NA

Senior Member

Joined: 12/09/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 04/05/20 11:40am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

There was an interesting article on a German CO2 extracting operation about a year ago. It was a German language article but I’m sure one could find it in English or use an online translator. I don’t remember a lot about it but it was designed to be scaleable.

I’m not up on the whole climate change CO2 thing. I am more about air quality and emmisions going forward. And this from someone with an ISC Cummins in their Motorhome. [emoticon]. I see the need for any vehicles driven in cities to have zero emmisions as that is where the greatest health damage is done to health. I tend to agree that there is room for both in the next couple decades but I think evolution will make it difficult to sell someone an electric is the same price or cheaper not to mention a quarter of the price to operate and maintain. That, and more responsive, quieter, better driving experience etc. It will take a few more years for that to happen but it will. I am a long time fan of Jaguar and BMW but now find it difficult to find an equivalently priced fossil fuel competitor from them that would keep up to a model 3 AWD. In 5 years things will be much different.

Jmho

* This post was edited 04/05/20 11:59am by an administrator/moderator *

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 04/05/20 04:37pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

If air quality is a major concern, then don't live in highly populated areas because they have bad PM even without ICE vehicles.

* This post was edited 04/05/20 05:01pm by an administrator/moderator *

NJRVer

NJ

Senior Member

Joined: 05/16/2011

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 04/07/20 07:17pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Wow.
According to the link higher vehicle pollution means less people will be killed on the highways and somehow the cost of operating will magically drop.

down home

south

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2008

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 04/08/20 12:46pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Baloney!
We have a 2019 Edge ST 2.7 liter twin turbo. It is supposed to get over 35mg, I think.
Trip back home on cruise at 70-75-80 with stops for fuel 22.5 mpg 1800 miles.
My AMGwith two and half times as much power gets about 24mpg on long haul in 7th at 70-80-100 mph so long as you don't hit the throttle much.
It takes the same amount of power to move the same weight on the same roads and same conditions.
They increased the weigh by 400 lbs, cut broader power band but has a peak of about 70 more hp than the old 3.7 non turbo 2013 Edge motor. in the power band.
So my big block AMG puts out lots more torque and hp and uses less fuel in the same constant speed range...and don't haave to use the brakes going down hill much,or hit the gas atall going up a rise or hill.
Both use 93 octane fuel, which out west is impossible to find. and seriously affects output of the small turbo motor, and increases fuel use.

philh

Belleville MI

Senior Member

Joined: 05/11/2015

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 04/10/20 06:38pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

There is no known way to get to fuel economy standards in 2030 and beyond. If violated all known physics.

Small box hybrids would still struggle

Electric has it's own issues, there's not enough rare earth materials to replace IC vehicles, and main street is still not ready for EV

down home

south

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2008

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 04/11/20 01:45pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Diesel Fuel has about 40% energy content vs 22% I believe for gasoline.
EPA des not want us to have diesel cars and pcikups. I seem to remember they are shooting to make all cars run on straight Ethanol a "Renewable Resource" somewhere in dream land. Ethanol would bankrup everyone! Asw it is we are forced to subsidize Ethanol production, and then forced to buy it as unleaded without Ethanol is getting harder to find, and the Administration demanded more Ethanol on the market be added to gas. Diesel Pickup have problems with the DEF systems burning up from the high temps and ammonia but you can breath the exhaust straight. I am tired of paying more than a house fora vehicle that is scrunched up and I hit my head getting in, and my feet hang straight down and forced over to the side by the wheel well and the seat bottom is too short and hard and the seat entirely too narrow, weighs more than the old models but smaller and only a 19 gallon fuel tank regardless of make or model!and...the anemic engines, that pulling the same load perform pooer and uses as much fuel as a big block AMG.
A 4,00 lb sedan or coupe with ample seat and leg room and 400 hp+ on tap if called for will still get over 22 mpg on cruise and you aren't cramped and legs swollen from the ride. I'm sure everyone has noticed all the "crossover vehicles/SUVs that fit the same box area, and banging your head gettign in isnormal andd all scrunched up. it is a Honds is an Edge,is a Chevy, is a Suburu, and every other model. Who here has approached their vehcile only to fidn it isn't even the same make when you get close? and our 2019 Edge ST weighs 400 lbs more than out 2013 Edge, is narrower and shorter and the seats more uncomfortable unless you are a woman or child. The EPA and NHTSa are defacto designers of our cars now! Eventually one vehicle with different trim levels and designs and one or two engiens with different names on badges! So they can easily control what is on the roads and what fuel they will let on the market and we must use and we must all refuel within the limits of a 19 gallon fuel tank.
Our old Plymouth Fury with 400 ci engine we filled the tank before leaving for 60000 mile trip to Michigan. We may have topped off the tank ocne but it was bathroom stops for the kids mostly.

Reisender

NA

Senior Member

Joined: 12/09/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 04/11/20 02:09pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Wow. How big of a tank do you need for a 60,000 mile trip to Michigan...and what was your starting point? [emoticon]

* This post was edited 04/11/20 03:07pm by an administrator/moderator *

down home

south

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2008

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 04/13/20 11:18pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Duuuh! All this Coronavirus talk has me my fingers jittery and bouncing keys.
It is only 600 miles except'n if you take the circumpolar route to the south and miss Michigan the first three trips.

DrewE

Vermont

Senior Member

Joined: 08/23/2014

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 04/14/20 10:41am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

down home wrote:

Duuuh! All this Coronavirus talk has me my fingers jittery and bouncing keys.
It is only 600 miles except'n if you take the circumpolar route to the south and miss Michigan the first three trips.


I suppose another option would be to go through, say, Pittsburgh and make a wrong turn and spend the next 59,400 miles trying to figure out how to get out of the city.

(I've nothing in particular against Pittsburgh; I just happen to have gotten lost and twisted up more in that city than any other I can think of offhand. Its street system somehow reminds me of one of those enormous overstuffed sofas that you can easily sit down in but then have a terrible time standing up again.)





Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 3  
Prev

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > New Federal Fuel Economy Standard (SAFE)
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.